An increasingly loud tug-of-war between insurers and litigation financiers is getting new oxygen from fresh analysis arguing that third-party funding is reshaping pricing and availability across commercial lines.

An article in CIR Magazine contends that legal funding has evolved from a niche alternative asset into a structural feature of modern disputes finance, citing estimates of roughly $18.9bn invested by year-end 2025 and a potential $67bn annual market by 2037. The piece situates TPF alongside other cost drivers facing carriers and notes that, for claimants and contingency-fee firms, non-recourse capital can be the bridge to pursue meritorious, multi-year claims that would otherwise stall.

Beyond the headline numbers, the analysis tracks the now-familiar clash of narratives. On one side, insurers and some trade groups attribute part of premium pressure to the availability of third-party capital and the resulting expansion in claims severity and duration. On the other, funders argue TPF is a risk-sharing tool that expands access to justice and, in commercial matters, helps rationalize corporate legal spend by shifting costs off balance sheet.

If carriers continue to publicly scrutinize TPF while capital keeps flowing into legal assets, expect better disclosure frameworks where appropriate, closer alignment between ATE and funding, and refined risk pricing. The friction itself may accelerate product innovation — including structures that blunt insurer concerns without sacrificing access to justice.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has ordered that £3.7 million in unclaimed damages from a £25 million rail fare settlement be transferred to the Access to Justice Foundation (ATJF), citing what it called a “very low rate of take‑up” among eligible claimants.

An article in The Global Legal Post reports that the case involved Stagecoach South West Trains, which had been accused of abusing its dominant position by failing to make boundary fares accessible to Travelcard holders, resulting in some passengers being double-charged for parts of their journeys.

Though around 1.4 million passengers were estimated to be eligible, only about £216,500 was claimed by class members. The CAT allowed an intervention by the campaign group Fair Civil Justice (FCJ), which challenged whether the claimant law firms and funders were acting in the best interests of consumers. The tribunal noted that the take‑up was “very much short of the level predicted by the class representative.” The ATJF was praised for its ability to deploy the unclaimed funds in a way that benefits the public, including its grantees. There is still a pending determination by the tribunal on how much of the remaining settlement fund should go to claimant lawyers and the litigation funder.

This development throws into relief tensions in UK class actions between the potential scale of recoveries and the actual engagement of harmed consumers. For litigation funders and law firms, it raises fundamental questions: are cases structured and promoted in ways that reach those harmed; should unclaimed funds automatically divert to charity; and how should oversight and claims notice provisions be strengthened?

For the wider legal funding industry, this could signal pushback on low participation, increased regulatory attention, and pressure to ensure that collective actions are both meaningful and accessible to their intended beneficiaries.